User talk:Noellesch9

Welcome!

Hello, Noellesch9, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maximiliano Korstanje

Many of the sources are wp:primary and are not acceptable. You need to discuss this on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Maximiliano Korstanje talk:Maximiliano Korstanje. I keep saying this and nobody takes any heed. This is getting quite frustrating. I will undo your edit. You need to read and understand wp:BRD, wp:reliable sources, wp:NOTRS, and possibly wp:COI. Get wp:consensus before adding anything. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim: JZG has deleted everything I wrote, Can you help me?. I am planning to write on Korsanje theory, and the discussion he awoke, but need other librarian do not delete what I am writting. Moderating is better than deleting. JZG puts a message this is a vannity biography, which is not true. Reliable sources are acreddited peer review journals which are often used by experts. Korstanje hates social netowrks and declined to have personal websites. what I have only is what he publishes and newspapers where he is cited. If you want I abort this biography??????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noellesch9 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NPROF. Find Reliable Independent Published Sources which discuss MK - not just his own papers. Then add well-supported content to the article. If other people have written about his work, say what they said in your own words, or give brief quotations in quotation marks, and give the references. Simple. PamD 23:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok that sounds good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noellesch9 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to emulate this bio from what has been written on Noel Salazar, I do not know if this is acorrect template?. If I understand right Wikipedia does not need I cite Korstanje works but only what others, which would be newspapers, articles and sources, says on Korstanje´s work. Is that ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noellesch9 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Noel B. Salazar is not a good example to copy. It appears to have been created by one of Salazar's own students, and largely edited by that same editor. It's not obvious whether Salazar is notable enough for an article - a previous version of the article, written by the same editor, was deleted in 2010 after discussion at AfD. PamD 23:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And until a couple of minutes ago, when a helpful editor upgraded the references after I tagged the article with {{Link rot}}, the article had lazy bare-URL references, not a good example to follow. PamD 23:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule if an article has been largely edited by editors who have not worked on any other articles, then it is unlikely to be a good example to follow. PamD 23:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know Pam I will follow others examples — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noellesch9 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle, have you read any of the comments asking you to sign your posts? If you are incapable of understanding this simple convention, then you should not be trying to edit an encyclopedia. Your knowledge of English also seems doubtful: did you mean "I will follow other examples" or "I will follow others' examples"? Either of them makes sense, but what you typed did not. PamD 21:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)I[reply]

Dear Pam, I log in each time I edit in wikipedia, I note all your suggestions but I need to learn more how wikipedia works. I see the biography of Rodolfo Enrique Fogwill as a potential template. Anyway, I will do my best to make the same with Korstanje but will be the site open for other users and editor to intervene because my lack of knowledge respecting to the rules of wikipedia. sorry if my english is not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noellesch9 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle, logging in is not the same as signing your posts. Please, every time you add something to a talk page (either an article talk page or a user talk page, including this one, your own talk page), just type ~~~~ at the end. That adds the date, time and your editor name. Is it so difficult to understand? PamD 22:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK SURE Noellesch9 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope

Pam and Jim cannot give you permission to include promotional content, and in fact did not, they merely made some suggestions based on a good-faith reading of your request - however, your request was based on some false premises, and my long familiarity with the world of substandard and fraudulent sources is sufficient to be confident that some of the content you included is essentially equivalent to academic vanity publishing. Please do not reinsert this material again. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so persistent in repeatedly adding that content? Please discuss on the talk page. Get wp:Consensus before adding. See wp:DR for advice. Jim1138 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have included valida and prestige academic sources, obviously you are not an real academic and for that reason you do not valorise my work. From the start, I acted in good faith and appreicated Jim and Pam helps. Evidently, this is too much job to me. Go ahead delete the website, but please do not believe you are an scholar, you are not. I hope sincerlly some day wikipedia would be a serious platform towards knowledge, today it is a fake because of editor like you. cheers Noelle.

Me a "scholar"? No, I'm not; never professed to be one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scholarly journal. BTW. It appears that you haven't done your scholarly research. You keep re-adding content after being told multiple times not to do so and given links to policy on what to do. If you want an article published, do you get to drop the article into a scholarly journal without review? They have, or at least should have policies and procedures. Unless, of course, they are the vanity press. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you need to do so per Wikipedia's wp:policy. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and most of my "suggestions" consisted of pointing you to policy and procedures. Jim1138 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you Jim you have been tremedous help as well as Pam. But this guy lacked respect to me. This is not a war editing, am an student who want to contribute to wikipedia because it is a good idea, project, that declined or it is being rejected by academicians because people like guy. I do not want to struggle or discuss this is not my style. I am not persistent but need to learn many things. The message was not intended to you, but to Guy.

I leave editing this biography untill I learn how to do it. After all I do not intend to undermine the credibility of Korstanje who is unaware of my actions. The point is that many biographies of living people as David Altheide, Ignatieff, Caren Kaplan are incorrect, or biased. I like to help

Notice of edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maximiliano Korstanje. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit more carefullly

Noelle, I have already asked you to sign and date edits to my talk page (and to any other talk page). You can either type ~~~~ or use the "signature" icon on the editing bar. In your last edit, you started the first line with a space: this produces an effect which I don't think you intended. See the state of my talk page as you left it here. When you do an edit, either to an article or to a talk page, please take a moment to look at it and check that all is well. If not, then try to fix it, or ask for help, or revert the edit. You say you are a university student so you are obviously an intelligent person: please apply some of your intelligence to learning how to interact courteously with other editors in this encyclopedia. Making a mistake once is one thing, but failure to read and learn is liable to upset other editors. Although this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there is also the saying that "Competence is Required". PamD 16:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for your comments nad let me know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noellesch9 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you are still not taking any notice of my advice: please sign all messages on talk pages, even your own. It's the only way for anyone reading the page to be able to know who said what and when. There is also a convention that when replying to a message you indent it using :, repeated as often as needed to indent by several levels. I've indented your reply above. Please take the trouble to learn a little more about editing this encyclopedia and communicating with other editors. PamD 22:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]